Does Entertainment Money Buy SOPA Support?
Why were so many websites blacked out yesterday? It was in protest to legislation making its way through Congress that would build a blacklist for a variety of actions related to online piracy. The legislation would give the government power to take down websites who are connected to copyright infringements. Broadly defined, this could include even placing a link to a website that sells counterfeit goods or allows file-sharers to connect. So if I placed a link on my website to a torrent site, the government would have legal authority to shut my website down.
Free speech activists and web companies have aligned against the bill. Media companies including record labels and movie studios have aligned in support of it. With this information in mind, Pro Publica gathered information on campaign donations to senators from the entertainment industry and senators’ position on PIPA, the Senate’s version of the legislation described above (called SOPA in the House of Representatives). Perhaps not surprisingly, among the top ten senators receiving the most money from the entertainment industry, only one is on record as opposing the legislation.
Why does this predictable pattern happen? A simplistic explanation is that money buys the vote. These senators know how they need to vote in order to keep that campaign cash rolling in and therefore they vote in their own best interests, which may not be the best interests of the country. If this is true, it means that our elected officials are crooked, even evil. And asking the senators if they are voting in favor because of the money, all would deny that this is the case. That means, if we assume the simplistic explanation is true, that they are all also liars.
But does this cynical explanation actually live up to scrutiny? The answer is no. No elected official gets rich on their government salary, and every single senator is able to make more money out of office than in, by working as a lobbyist, giving speeches, taking positions on corporate boards or in think-tanks. And the money they take from the entertainment industry doesn’t translate to luxuries. It is spent on their campaigns and related efforts. The senators aren’t suffering, of course, and they make well above the nation’s median salary. But it doesn’t make sense for them to change their votes for money because there is little benefit to them in doing so. They could make more money out of government yet they stay in, partly because they are motivated to serve the people, as corny as that might sound.
Is it just a fluke, then, that those senators receiving money from the entertainment industry happen to support legislation favored by the same industry? It quite possibly is, but a more satisfying explanation is that money doesn’t buy votes; instead, it buys time and access. Think about it this way. If someone gives you $50,000 unsolicited and then asks to meet with you for an hour, would you be likely to refuse? Most all of us would be more than happy to meet with such a generous benefactor. The same thing happens with politicians. Campaign donors who give a lot get time to meet with the politician. They also get invited to social events where they can talk with the politician’s staff and others who matter to the politician. That money buys a lot of access.
So what happens during that access? I suspect a lot of general socializing. But when things get down to business, it means the politician gets a pretty convincing and coherent argument about a certain piece of legislation that the donor would like to see passed. There are strong arguments in favor of most anything, and you can bet that the entertainment industry can put together a good presentation in favor of their side. Piracy costs us money, it hurts the economy, it hurts creativity, etc.
This type of argument might not have much effect if the politician heard the other side of the story. The murkiness of the law, the challenges with enforcement, the slippery slope issues, not to mention the entertainment industry’s narrow reading of just what “fair use” means. Hearing both sides might temper the politician’s support. But in this particular case, only one side is organized enough (and wealthy enough) to buy the access needed.
Thus money doesn’t buy a vote but it does guarantee that the politician will get a good argument on just what the donor thinks is good for the country. Hearing only one side of the argument makes the legislation seem completely straight-forward and beneficial. This particular process is likely to be even more extreme when the legislation in question is not deeply partisan and when it is little understood by the politician. If constituents aren’t calling about it, that too will help make the donor’s position seem even more logical and persuasive.
Understanding the problem this way doesn’t make it go away, but it at least offers a starting point for solving the problem. Restricting lobbyists and campaign donations can make a big difference on just what voices the politician hears. Maybe someday the people can talk as loud as the money does.
Related posts (automatically generated):